Wx: AmSn oe “HAMPSEIRE 
- INTER. iii, 


| “Two RECENT EGYPTIAN 
, i - oe _HOARDS a 


Cie eae EDWARD - NEWELL 
‘THE ‘AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
_ BROADWAY AT I56TH STREET = 
ae NEW YORK Oe eee ane 
in ne 


-PUBLICATIONS 
The American igen of Nohalamation, e 
1866-1920. ty 


Monthly, May, pee agar 1870, 
Quarterly, July, 18 76--October, 1912, 
sey, 1913-1920. 


With. many plates, illdeteeoes: maps and tables. 


Less than a dozen complete sets of the Jour- 


nal remain on hand. Prices on application. 


The numbers necessary to complete broken sets — 

may in most cases be obtained. An index to 
the first fifty volumes has been issued as 
part of Volume LI. It may also be pur- 
chased separately for $3, .00. 


The American Numismatic Society. Catalogue 


of the International Exhibition of Contempo- 


rary Medals. March, 1910. New and revised 
edition. New York. tort. xxxvi, 412 
pages, 512 illustrations. $10.00. 


The American Numismatic Society, Exhibition | 
of United States and Colonial Coins. 1914. 
vii, 134 pages, 4o plates. $1.00. ~~ 


NUM&SMATIC 
NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS 


Numismatic Notes AND MONOGRAPHS 
is devoted to essays and treatises on sub- 
jects relating to coins, paper money, 
medals and decorations, and is uniform 
with Hispanic Notes and Monographs 
published by the Hispanic Society of 
America, and with Indian Notes and 
Monographs issued by the Museum of the 


American Indian—Heye Foundation. 


PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 
AGNES BALDWIN Brett, Chairman 
W. GEDNEY BEATTY 
Henry RusseELtt DROWNE 


Joun REILiy, Jr. 


EDITORIAL STAFF 


SypnEyY Putte Nor, Editor 
Howtanp Woop, Associate Editor 


tye RECENT EGYPTIAN 
HOARDS 


oy 
= 
BY Pe & 
3 WY 
EDWARD T. NEWELL & i e 
gf Oo 


oo US 
ll 
SS oe 
e) —J 
S 
SS 
= m= 


THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
BROADWAY AT I560TH STREET 
NEW YORK 
1927 


3 
i 


Ps : & 
ans 
: & 
& 


we 


nar 


AG 


, 


TPP Pipe per ee? 


ABNSS § Ynrae C. I. Ll 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS I 


TWO RECENT EGYPTIAN 
HOARDS 


By Epwarp T. NEwELt. 


it 
Peo tA HOARD 


Except for a short notice in The 
Numismatist (March, 1924, p. 301) the 
writer has not since had the leisure to 
discuss two rather interesting hoards 
which he met with during his last so- 
journ in Egypt in the winter of 1923-4. 
These two hoards, while not perhaps of 
any very great moment, none the less give 
us very welcome glimpses as to just what 


periods of her history under the 
Ptolemies. Incidentally, they may also 


Meow ATIC. NOTES 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


serve to affirm or correct certain datings 
and attributions suggested by previous 
students of the somewhat intricate prob- 
lems presented by the various Ptolemaic 
coinages. 

For all information concerning the 
earliest of these hoards the writer is in- 
debted to Dr. Eddé of Alexandria, 
through whose hands these particular 
coins first passed. Such pieces as still 
remained in his possession in December, 
1923, he kindly showed the writer, in- 
forming him at the same time that cer- 
tain specimens which had appeared in 
Ciani’s Sale, held on October 16th, 1923, 
at the Hotel Drouot in Paris (and which 
sale the writer had himself chanced to 
attend), had also originally been in the 
find. The exact time and locality of the 
discovery Dr. Eddé did not know or pos- 
sibly, for obvious reasons, did not care 
to divulge. Briefly stated, the coins had 
been brought to him early in 1923 by some 
peasants of the Egyptian delta who said 
they had found them while working 
their fields. More precise information 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 


DELTA HOARD OF 1923 


hte 


would not probably, in any case, add very 
greatly to the scientific value of our lit- 
tle hoard. According to Dr. Eddé the 
“find’, as sold to him by the peasants, 
consisted of the following twenty-one 
pieces: 

Protemy II PHILADELPHUS. 

285-246 B. C. 

1 Phoenician tetradrachm. Diademed 
head of Ptolemy Soter to r. Rev. 
Eagle standing to 1. Of “Asiatic” 
style, according to Dr. Eddé. 


BrERENICE II, WIFE oF PTroLtemy III 
EUERGETES. 
246-221 B. C. 


2 Veiled bust of the queen to r. in 
circle of dots. Rev. BASIAISZHE 
on r., BEPENIKH® on 1.. Cornu- 
copiae adorned with diadem and 
flanked by the wreath-encircled 
Gapes oo ine | Dioscuri. -. Attic 
pentadrachm. Gr. 19.27. Worn 
very slightly. Svoronos No. 989. 
Now in the author’s collection. 
Poate J, 1. 


WN De ON OGRA PHS 


4 i TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


") 


4-6 


NUMISMATIC Kia 


Similar to the preceding. 

two-and-a-half drachma piece. 
10.38. Slightly worn. Svoronos 
No. 990. Ciani’s Sale, Oct. 16th, 
1923, No. 66. Now in the author’s 
collection. PLate I, 2. 


PtoLtEMY IV PHILOPATOR 
221-204 B. C. 


Jugate busts of Serapis (adorned 
with the laurel wreath and the 
“pshent”) and Isis (adorned with 
wheat ear and solar disk with 
uraei) to r. in circle of dots. Rev. 
ITTOAEMAIOY on 1., BASITAEQS 
on r. Eagle with head reverted 
standing to 1. upon a thunderbolt 
and bearing upon his’ shoulder 
double cornucopiae adorned with a 
diadem. Between the eagle’s claws: 
XE. Phoenician tetradrachm. Very 
fine or uncirculated. 4. Naville 
Sale X,/ No: -1620);°oR eaailauu: 
Same sale, No. 1630; gr. 13.50. 
6. Another, now in the author’s 
collection, gr. 14.21. Prate I, 3. 


DELTA HOARD OF 1923 5 


7-20 Similar to the preceding except that 
AI is between the eagle’s claws. 
Svoronos No. 1124. 7. Ciani Sale, 
ee 1023, No. 67. (Pl, iii). 
peesame. sale, No, 68 (PI. iii). 
9) Same sale, No. 69 (PI. iii). 
10. Naville X, 1626, gr. 14.10. 
Meese sale, 1627, gr. 13.90. 
IZ. Same sale, 1628, gr. 14.01. 
PomeNavitle, XI), 2602, gr... 13.78. 
14. Same sale, 2603, gr. 14.00. 
Ia oame sale, 2604, gr. 13.99. 
16. Same sale, 2605, gr. 14.10. 
17. Same sale, 2606, gr. 13.63. 
fou ame sale, 2607, gr. 14.11. 
19. Another is now in commerce. 
@eemesttnors coll.,.°gr. 14,12, 
Puate I, 4. Practically all of these 
pieces are in an uncirculated state. 

21 Similar to the preceding except 
that XI is between the eagle’s 
claws and 3 tame the le field. 
Svoronos No. 1186. Naville Sale 
Seino 1631, er. 13.906) (— Ciani’s 
Baleoct: 116, 1923; | No. 70, 
Plate iii). Practically uncirculated. 


AND MONOGRAPHS i 


6 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


All of these coins, with the sole excep- 
tion of No. 1 which had previously been 
disposed of, were actually seen and 
handled by the present writer. Their unt- 
form appearance and type of oxidization 
with sufficient clearness betokened their 
common origin from a single find. Nos. 
2 and 3, though slightly corroded, were 
in good condition but showed signs of 
circulation. Nos. 4 to 21, though simi- 
larly attacked by corrosion had obviously 
been in a brilliant state of preservation 
when their original owner had seen fit 
to bury them some twenty-one hundred 
odd years ago. 

The Berenice coins Nos. 2 and 3, al- 
though very rare are, none the less, well 
known varieties] struck in the reign of 
Ptolemy III Euergetes in honour of his 
beautiful and able wife Berenice, daugh- 
ter of Magas of Cyrene. Nos. 7 to 20 in- 
clusive, struck by Ptolemy IV Philopator, 
are also well known, no less than eigh- 
teen specimens of this particular variety 
having been recorded by Svoronos. ? 


The same is true of No. 21, of similar 


NUMISMATHIC NOW 


DELTA HOARD OF 1923 


types but coined in the mint at Sidon. 
Nos. 4 to 6 inclusive, on the other hand, 
present a new variety of the Serapis and 
Isis type in that they have the monogram 
SE between the eagile’s claws instead of 
the more usual AI. This may, perhaps, be 
looked upon as the first issue of Ptolemy 
IV’s reign as there is in existence a single 
specimen* of the coinage with his 
mother’s portrait bearing the same mono- 
gram. This latter coin could not very 
well have been issued by Ptolemy IV him- 
self as he had but just caused Berenice’s 
assassination when he came to the throne 
following his father’s demise in 221 B. C. 
One might suppose, therefore, that the 
Berenice coin had been struck under 
Euergetes, immediately preceding his 
death, and that its magistrate NE con- 
tinued to function for a while under 
Ptolemy IV. It is also possible, though 
hardly probable, that Nos. 4 to 6 (to- 
gether with the above-mentioned Berenice 
coin) were not coined at Alexandria at 
all but belong to the Cyrenaic mint where 
we know ® that bronze coins with a simi- 


AY VeMONOGRAPHS 


8 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


lar monogram were being struck at this 
time. Be this as it may, the sudden ap- 
pearance of certain Serapis and Isis 
tetradrachms with the XE monogram 
would confirm Svoronos’ hesitating re- 
moval © to the reign of Philopator of at 
least the bulk of the large series of 
bronze coins bearing this same mono- 
gram which he had at first assigned to 
the reign of Euergetes (his Nos. 992- 
994). That the tetradrachms bearing the 
jugate busts of Serapis and Isis really 
belong to Philopator’s reign was first 
correctly recognized by Svoronos* and 
hardly requires further discussion. The 
special honours paid to these divinities by 
Philopator 8 and the dedication of their 
joint temple at Alexandria ® amply ex- 
plain and date the sudden appearance of 
this interesting and novel type on the. 
Ptolemaic coinage. That these particular 
coins should occur in a hoard mixed with 
Berenice issues still further supports 
Svoronos’ attribution. 

On the other hand, the unearthing of 
two more specimens of the Berenice type 


NUMISMATIC WO 


DEVE nuARD OF 1923 


in Egypt itself rather seems to do away, 
once and for all, with Svoronos’ some- 
what hazardous attribution of these coins 
to the mints of Ephesus and Seleucia on 
the Orontes.19 Svoronos himself re- 
cords 4! the finding of two specimens in 
Egypt—the only definite provenience 
which he deigns to give us at all—but, 
obviously to save his own view-point, 
states that these coins are especially fre- 
quently found in the coastal districts of 
Asia Minor.12 Unfortunately: he neg- 
lects, or is unable, to furnish us with any 
definite proof of his assertion. In con- 
trast to this vagueness it is possible to 
show that at least nine of the known gold 
and silver Berenice coins have turned 
up in Egypt. One of the gold dodeca- 
drachms and two of the silver penta- 
drachms from the Dupré and Gréau col- 
lections are stated by C. W. Huber in his 
“Zur alten Numismatik Aegyptens” 18 
to have been found while excavating the 
Suez Canal. A specimen of the gold 
octodrachm in Huber’s own collection is 
said by him !4 also to have been found in 


SD MONOGRAPHS 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


Egypt. Furthermore, according to Hu- 
ber,!4@ Rev. Reichardt’s example of the 
gold pentadrachm was purchased by him 
in Cairo. Of the three gold Berenice coins 
in the present writer’s collection two 
(similar to Svoronos Nos. 973 and 982) 
were actually purchased in Cairo, and one 
of these was claimed by its former owner 
to have been found at Ebtu in Upper 
Egypt early in 1923. The third coin 
(= Svor. No. 972) there is good reason 
to believe was found at Heliopolis near 
Cairo. Thus, together with the two 
Berenice silver coins in the present hoard, 
we possess more or less authentic rec- 
ords of no less than nine of the known 
Berenice coins having turned up in the 
land of the Nile. Certainly their style 
and fabric is not Asiatic but typically 
Egyptian. 

Unfortunately our hoard brings us no 
new evidence by which we may explain 
the sudden and anomalous occurrence of 
coins of Attic weight in the Egyptian 
series nearly a century after that system 
had been definitely abandoned by Ptolemy 


| NUMISMATIC N ORES 


DELTA HOARD OF 1923 


I Soter. Its reappearance may have been 
occasioned by certain exigencies of trade 
or of politics of which we know nothing 
or can offer, at best, only vague surmises 
upon which to work. It is to be hoped 
that the future discovery or decipherment 
of contemporary papyri may throw some 
welcome light upon so difficult and puz- 
zling a question. Perhaps the wide-flung 
and successful campaigns of Ptolemy III 
through the very heart of the Seleucid 
empire (where the Attic weight system 
was at this time universally used), or the 
bringing back to Egypt by victorious 
soldiery of plundered Seleucid treasures 
may have thrown so much Attic silver 
and gold upon the Egyptian markets that 
there sprang up a demand for an inter- 
mediary coinage that would readily ex- 
change in terms of the two prevalent cur- 
rencies—the Attic and the Egypto- 
Phoenician. Not only military successes 
but also an increased foreign trade might 
have brought about a similar demand. At 
any rate, the Attic silver pentadrachm 
(such as No. 2) would represent the 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


equivalent of six Ptolemaic drachms 
(or one and a half of the usual current 
tetradrachms). The two-and-a-half At- 
tic drachm piece (such as No. 3) would 
equal three Ptolemaic drachms or three- 
fourths of a tetradrachm. Similarly the 
gold Attic two-and-a-half drachm piece 
(Svor. No. 979) would represent the 
equivalent of three Ptolemaic gold 
drachms, the pentadrachm (Svor. Nos. 
973, 978) of six Ptolemaic gold drachms, 
the decadrachm (Svor. No. 972) of 
twelve Ptolemaic gold drachms or exactly 
one and a half of the ordinary gold 
Egyptian Mvaeta, the commonest of 
Egyptian gold coins and at this time 
struck in both single and half pieces 
(Svor. Nos. 1117, 1118). This expedient 
of issuing a coinage intermediary between 
the two dominant systems of the eastern 
Mediterranean was but ephemeral—as 
might have been expected. With the 
commencement of Ptolemy IV _ Philo- 
pator’s reign it was abandoned, never 
again to be revived. 

To return once more to our hoard, the 


NUMISMATIG AG. 


PETA HOARD OF 1923 E 


exact date of its burial can hardly be 
determined, any more than the causes 
which actually led to its interment. The 
uniformly splendid preservation of Nos. 4 
to 21, point, however, to the early years 
of Philopator’s reign. For several rea- 
sons, with which Regling apparently 
agrees,1® Svoronos17 has placed the 
Serapis and Isis tetradrachms among the 
earliest issues of Philopator. Our hoard 
fully substantiates his views but offers 
nothing to fix the date of burial closer 
than somewhere in the first quarter, cer- 
tainly within the first half, of Philopator’s 
reign. 


ANDO MONO'GRAPHS 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOsiwe. 


II 
THE KEN ET Os kw 


This hoard, of small artistic but of 
considerable intrinsic and scientific value, 
would seem to have come to light some 
time in the first six months of 1923. It 
was still, for the most part, in the hands 
of the well known dealer in antiquities, 
M. Maurice Nahman, when the writer vis- 
ited Cairo towards the end of that same 
year. M. Nahman very kindly granted 
every facility for studying the coins and 
also furnished what little information is 
available concerning the discovery and 
disposal of the hoard. It is said to have 
been found near Keneh in Upper Egypt 
and was bought by M. Nahman just 
a month preceding the latter’s departure 
for Europe in July, 1923. He took the 
opportunity of carrying a selection of 
the coins with him for disposal in Paris 
where the present writer, a few months 
later, saw several specimens. Among 
others, one Arsinoe gold octodrachm was 


NUMISMATIOC RY 


KENEH HOARD 15 


shown him by Messrs. Feuardent Fréres, 
two or three more by M. Clément Platt, 
while three octodrachms and ten silver 
tetradrachms appeared as Nos. 63-65, 73- 
82 in the auction sale held on October 
16th, 1923, by Messrs. Ciani and Florange 
at the Hotel Drouot. When the writer ar- 
rived in Cairo, M. Nahman still possessed 
in his trays some six or more of the gold 
octodrachms and about one hundred and 
sixty silver tetradrachms. He - also 
stated that, altogether, the hoard as of- 
fered to him had contained about forty- 
five gold coins (including two of the 
rare Arsinoe gold tetradrachms) and over 
two hundred silver tetradrachms and 
also that, so far as he knew, he had been 
able to secure the entire find. 

The coins were all without exception, 
both gold and silver, in the finest pos- 
sible condition. The silver pieces were 
covered with a thin layer of purplish 
grey oxide, while the gold pieces showed 
every evidence of having been buried 
with the silver, because their surfaces 
showed here and there small patches of 


moe MONOGRAPHS 


16 [| TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


the silver oxide where they had lain in 
contact with the disintegrating surfaces 
of the silver tetradrachms. There can be 
no reasonable question but that all of 
these coins, both gold and silver, had 
really come from a single find as stated 
by M. Nahman. 


Mint : ALEXANDRIA. 


Ptolemy VI Philometor 181/o-145 B. C. 
and possibly during the early years of 
his successor’s (Ptolemy VIII) sole 
reign. 

About forty-three Gold Octodrachms. 
Obv. Veiled and diademed bust of 

Arsinoe to r. with lotus-tipped sceptre. 

Behind head, K. 

Rev. APXINOHD £®IAAAEA®OY, 
around double cornucopiae filled with 
fruits and tied with the royal diadem. 
Varieties of Svoronos Nos. 1242 (Plate 
xl, 20-23), 1374 (Plate xlvii, 1-3), 1498 
(Plate li, 17-19), 1499 (Plate li, 20-1, 
24). The specimen here illustrated, 
PuaTeE II, 1 and 2, is in the writer’s col- 
lection and shows condition both before 


NUMISMATIO 2 GOs 


Ree HOARD 


and after cleaning. Other specimens from 
the hoard are illustrated in Ciani’s sale 
catalogue, Oct. 16th, 1923, Plate iii, Nos. 
63-65. M. Nahman stated that two of 
the Arsinoe octodrachms in the hoard 
showed letters on their reverses instead 
of on the obverses. We probably have 
to do here with contemporary Cypriote 
issues, such as are illustrated by Svoronos 
on his Plates xlix-l. Unfortunately these 
particular pieces had been sold before the 
writer’s arrival in Cairo. 


Two Gold Tetradrachms. 

Types similar to the preceding. The 
specimen now in the writer’s collection 
is illustrated PLarte II, 3. 


About one hundred and ninety Silver 
Tetradrachms. 

Obv. Diademed head of Ptolemy I 
Soter, wearing Aegis, to r. 

Rev. ILTOAEMAIOY BAXIAEQOD 
around eagle standing to 1. on thunder- 
bolt. 

Three specimens in the writer’s collec- 
tion are illustrated Piate II, 4 and 5, 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


18 | TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


Prate III, 1. Similar pieces from the 
hoard are given in the above-mentioned 
Ciani catalogue, Plate iv, Nos. 73-82. 


Mint: 72PAPHOS, 
Ptolemy VI Philometor (sole reign) 
163-145 B. C. 


One Silver Tetradrachm: 

Obv. Diademed head of Ptolemy | 
Soter, wearing the Aegis, to r. 

Rev. ILTOAEMAIOY BAZSIAEQD 
around eagle standing to 1. on a thunder- 
bolt. In 1. field, LAL. In r. field ITA: 
Specimen from the hoard in the writer’s 
collection, PLATE ILI, 2. 


Ptolemy VII Eupator. Associated with 
his father 146-145 B. C. 


One Silver Tetradrachm. 

Obv. Diademed head of Ptolemy I 
Soter, wearing Aegis, to r. 

Rev. ILTOAEMAIOY BAXIAEQS 
around eagle standing to |. on a thunder- 


LAM KAI 
bolt. In 1. field A In r. field TIA 


Specimen from the hoard in the writer’s 
collection, Pate III, 3. 


NUMISMATIC NGA 


KENEH HOARD 19 


Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (Sole reign) 
145-117 B. C. 


Two Silver Tetradrachms. © 

Obv. Diademed head of Ptolemy I 
Soter, wearing the Aegis, to r. 

Rev. ILTOAEMAIOY BASIAEQD 
around eagle standing to |. on a thunder- 
bolt. In 1. field, LKE. In r. field ITA. 
Specimen from the hoard in the writer’s 
collection Puiate III, 4. <A similar speci- 
men, from the hoard, was seen in the 
collection of Dr. Lewellyn Phillips, 
Cairo. 


Two Silver Tetradrachms. 

Obv. Similar to the preceding. 

Rev. Similar to the preceding except 
that the date reads LKD. Specimen 
from the hoard in the writer’s collection 
PuaTE III, 5. A similar specimen, from 
the hoard, was seen in Dr. Phillip’s col- 
lection. 

Other specimens, similar to the pre- 
ceding six pieces, may originally have 
been contained in the find, but if so they 
had already been disposed of before the 


fn DEM ONOGRAPHS 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


writer’s visit to Egypt. According to 
M. Nahman’s express statement there 
were ‘‘very few” of these Cypriote tetra- 
drachms in the hoard. 3 

It will be noticed that the coins here 
given to Alexandria (Puiate II, 4-5, 
Pirate III, 1) and, in fact, universally 
recognized as of Egyptian origin, pre- 
dominate in our hoard. ‘The last six 
coins, here given to Paphos in Cyprus, 
following Svoronos, were but sparsely 
represented in the Keneh Find. These 
particular varieties, however, had been 
assigned by Poole (Brit. Mus. Cat. 
Ptolemies, pp. 1xii, lxx-lxxi, Plate xxii, 1.) 
to a mint presumably transferred from 
Paphos to Alexandria. Entirely aside 
from questions of style and fabric the 
present hoard refutes this opinion. For, if 
they had really been struck in Alexandria, 
it is almost certain that our hoard would 
have contained a larger number. Svoronos 
also does not entirely accept 18 Poole’s 
conclusion but continues to assign these 
coins to Paphos, as indicated by the mint- 
mark IIA which they bear. On the other 


NUMISMATIO NOt 


ree HO A RD 21 


hand it is equally certain that, at a 
slightly later date in the reign of Ptolemy 
VIII Euergetes II, his Alexandrian is- 
sues really were marked with the letters 
ILA, as first pointed out by Poole. These 
latter are only to be distinguished from 
the true issues of Paphos by their some- 
what cruder but very individual style. 
While this is hardly the place to enter 
upon a detailed discussion of the many 
coinages of Philometor and Euergetes 
with a view not only to a definite sepa- 
ration of their respective issues but also 
to distinguish between the IIA coins 
struck at Paphos and those issued from 
the Alexandrian mint, a few indications 
of how this can be accomplished may not 
come amiss. We may start with the as- 
sumption, as proved by the very obvious 
evidence of fabric and style, that the sil- 
ver coins in our hoard represent the is- 
sues of two distinct mints. As they are 
all equally well preserved it is fairly 
certain that they were more or less con- 
temporaneous, and this rules out the pos- 
sibility that they might have been struck 


AND MONOGRAPHS | 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARD. 


in one mint. Again, it may reasonably 
be assumed that the coins whose numbers 
were greatest in our hoard ought to have 
come from the nearest mint, namely 
Alexandria. And this assumption 
amounts to a certainty when we consider 
the fact that Egypt resembles a long 
narrow funnel or corridor, with Keneh 
situated well up the narrowest part. The 
principal commercial door, commanding 
the mouth of the funnel, was Alexandria, 
the seat of a very active mint. Naturally 
it would be her issues which would tend 
to predominate the further we proceeded 
along the neck of the funnel. Therefore 
coins similar to PLate II, Nos. 4-5, must 
certainly be Egyptian in origin, and this 
fact has always been recognized by 
numismatists. The final six tetradrachms 
of our hoard (Piates III, 2-5) then, 
must belong to another mint, and this 
can only be Paphos —— indicated by the 
letters IIA and recognized as such by 
most numismatists except Poole. Ob- 
viously these coins are the direct suc- 
cessors in style and fabric of Svoronos’ 


ee: NUMISMATIC Reve 


Peewee HOARD 23 


Plate xlix, Nos. 4-24, whose assignment 
to Paphos by the Greek scholar has never 
been questioned. In their low relief and 
odd style these six tetradrachms are 
identical with the accepted Paphian is- 
sues but utterly unlike the Egyptian is- 
sues as exemplified by Piate II, Nos. 
4-5. Therefore, they never could have 
been their successors. No, the true suc- 
cessors of the prolific but unmarked 
Alexandrian issues of Philometor (here 
PLATE II, 4-5; Svoronos, Plate li, 1-5; 
Poole, Plate xxiv, 4-6) can only have 
been coins such as Svoronos Plate lii, 2-4, 
bearing the dates of Euergetes KI and 
KH. In the stylistic peculiarities of the 
Soter head, as well as of the eagle, these 
particular coins are intimately associated 
with the above-mentioned Egyptian is- 
sues. ‘They constitute the easy and ob- 
vious transition from them into the later 
certain Alexandrian issues of Euergetes 
such as Svoronos Plate xlix, No. 17, 
Plate lii, Nos. 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24 and 
so on—i. e., coins with the now anoma- 
lous “mint-mark” IIA and the dates 


AND MONOGRAPHS | | 


24 TWO ‘EGYPTIAN. HOARES 


running from A through NA. These lat- 
ter coins are certainly of Alexandrian 
origin. The present writer has secured 
innumerable specimens from _ strictly 
Egyptian hoards, and in style and fabric 
they again merge directly into the issues 
of Ptolemies X Soter and XI Alexander 
(cf. Svoronos Plate lvii) which issues 
both Poole 19 and Svoronos 7° recognize 
as necessarily of Egyptian origin. 

Our hoard is furthermore instrumental 
in proving that Poole, following Reich- 
ardt, 21 is absolutely justified in assign- 
ing certain very rare coins (here 
Puate III, 3) to Ptolemy Vy ieiieos 
Eupator, the son of Ptolemy VI Philo- 
metor, with whom he was associated in 
the kingdom the very year of the 
latter’s death. Svoronos, on the other 
hand, would see 72 in these coins an issue 
of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes struck in his 
36th year (= 134 Br°C@))e Siertrans- 
poses the inscription in the field so as to 
read LAC A KAI IIA and translates 
this : L (= year) Ale eer ee 
getes) A (= Atybartov or ’AAcbavioetag) 


NUMISMAIIG} G2 


Pero OAR D 


KAI (= and) IIA (= Ilégov voutoue). 
With this conclusion Regling disagrees 74 
absolutely and prefers the old explana- 
tion. Our hoard now comes to corrobo- 
rate fully the majority opinion. In the 
first place, this coin, if we were to fol- 
low Svoronos, would come some ten 
years later than the latest known dated 
coin in the find, which is quite inadmis- 
sible. Secondly, these particular coins, 
as we have shown, were struck at 
Paphos and have nothing to do with 
Alexandria or Egypt—as  Svoronos 
would have us believe from his re- 
arrangement and translation of the in- 
scription. Thirdly, the date AE can only 
refer to Philometor, as the immediately 
following coin of our hoard (PLATE 
III, 4) bears the date KE but is abso- 
lutely identical with it in the very indi- 
vidual style of its obverse die. If 
further proof be needed, there happens 
to be in the writer’s collection a coin 
similar to Pirate III, 2 (and therefore 
certainly of Ptolemy VI Philometor) but 
struck from the same obverse die as 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


TWO ‘EGYPTIAN HOA. 


Piate III, 3.5) Dhe latter corte 
therefore, belong to Philometor and not 
to a date ten years after his death. Now 
we know from Porphyrius 74 that the last 
year of Philometor was his 36th (AL), 
which was also the 25th (KE) year of 
Euergetes in his second reign at Alex- 
andria. The association in our little 
hoard of the three coins Prats III, 2-4, 
all so absolutely identical in style and 
fabric, is quite sufficient to refute the 
opinion of Svoronos. 

While it has long been believed that 
the Arsinoe gold octodrachms and tetra- 
drachms of increasingly mediocre style, 
and bearing the letter K behind the head 
(here Prate II, 1-3; “also. Ciant se cgale 
Plate iii, Nos. 63-65), were more or 
less contemporaneous with the silver 
tetradrachms such as Prater II, 4-5, 
and that all of these coins belonged some- 
where in the second century B. C.,?5 no 
definite proof of this has so far been pre- 
sented. The Keneh hoard fortunately 
steps in to fill this gap in the most defi- 
nite fashion. There can now be no doubt 


NUMISMATICGC 2G 


fmenriet HOARD 


but that these particular gold octodrachms 
and tetradrachms and silver tetradrachms 
(together with their accompanying di- 
drachms not represented in our hoard) 
not only belong together but that they 
must, for the most part, be assigned to 
the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor. A 
few may have been struck after Ptolemy 
VIII Euergetes had finally returned to 
Egypt in 147-6 B. C., on the death of 
his elder brother. For the earliest dated 
coin of his which we have from the 
Alexandria mint was not struck until 
$4424 i, (i, e¢., year KI = Svoronos, 
Plate lii, No. 2). The two intervening 
years, therefore, may well have seen the 
continuation of the undated coinage 
inaugurated by Philometor. In assigning 
these coins to Philometor it must always 
be remembered that for a goodly portion 
of his reign he was actually ruling con- 
jointly with his brother Euergetes, but 
the coinage was doubtless considered as 
being issued in the name of the senior 
brother. It should also be stated that 
all of the one hundred and _ fifty-five 


Pipe m ON OGRAPHS 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


tetradrachms from our hoard actually 
seen in Cairo, as well as those sold in 
Paris, were more or less identical with 
the two here illustrated on Priate II. 
The hoard apparently contained none of 
the somewhat similar pieces, but of flat- 
ter relief and smaller design, such as are 
pictured by Svoronos Plate xl, Nos. 2-6, 
and Poole, Plate xxiv, No. 7. With the 
inauguration of a dated coinage at Alex- 
andria under Euergetes in 144-3 B. C. 
the series of undated tetradrachms prob- 
ably came to an end. It may not have 
been so with the gold octodrachms bear- 
ing the old Arsinoe types. Exception- 
ally crude pieces, such as Svoronos Plate 
lviii, No. 3, do not seem to have been 
present in the Keneh Find and so may 
have been issued at a later date. 

The silver coins in the Keneh Hoard 
were practically all in the same splendid 
state of preservation, though, naturally, 
there was considerable variation in the 
amount of corrosion exhibited by the vari- 
ous specimens. The gold Coins, too, 
showed little or no wear, with the excep- 


NUMISMATIC 3G 


Ree HOARD 


tion of those few of somewhat better 
style (such as Pirate III, 1) which ex- 
hibited slight signs of circulation as com- 
pared with those of a little cruder style 
(such as Ciani’s Sale, Plate iii, Nos. 
63-5) which were in an absolutely sharp 
and uncirculated condition. It is remark- 
able that the only known dated coins in 
our find should all cover the short period 
of two years, i. e., year AL (36) of Philo- 
mietere(=-0140-5, 6, C.); year AL (36) 
of Philometer with A (1) of Eupator 
(also = 146-5 B. C.); and years KE (25) 
and KD (26) of Euergetes (= 145 and 
145-4 B. C.). And this although the 
dated Cypriote issues, both before and 
after these particular years, are quite 
common! ‘There must be some signifi- 
cance in so curious a fact and it sug- 
gests that the hoard was buried not very 
much after the year 144 B. C. This is 
further corroborated by the apparent 
total absence of any of the dated Alex- 
andrian issues of Euergetes which first 
commenced to appear in his 27th year, 
or im %44-3 B: C. If the hoard: had 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


been buried much later than this date 
they ought to have been represented in 
the find, considering the comparatively 
large number of coins which it actually 
contained. 

As the Keneh hoard was thus ap- 
parently buried within the first few 
years of Euergetes’ return to Egypt its 
interment may not have been uncon- 
nected with the somewhat disturbed con- 
dition of the country due to the repres- 
sive measures at once adopted by the new 
king. He was obviously most unpopular 
with certain powerful factions, especially 
the Greek and the Jewish, who had par- 
ticularly favoured the well-beloved Philo- 
metor. On his death they had declared 
for his widow and youthful son Ptolemy 
Neos Eupator as against Euergetes’ 
claim to the throne. It was only with 
an army at his back that Euergetes made 
good his claim, and being of an ener- 
getic and ruthless nature proceeded at 
once to make certain of his position by 
all means in his power, including assassi- 
nation, massacre and wholesale banish- 


NUMISMATIiIC NG 


Bowe: HOARD 


ment. Such drastic measures, ruthlessly 
carried out in the first years °° of his 
reign, must have brought. fear and con- 
sternation to the wealthier and more in- 
fluential people of the country, especially 
to those at all intimately associated with 
the preceding reign or devoted to its 
memory. In such times of imminent dan- 
ger to property and person many a family 
treasure would assuredly find its way 
into the ground, there to await—if dis- 
aster befell—the lucky finder of later 
ages. That the Keneh Hoard represents 
one of these hastily buried fortunes may 
well be. The burial date would support 
the suggestion—but absolute certainty can 
hardly be expected in such a case. 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


31 


32 


TWO EGYPTIAN HOARDS 


NOTES. 


1. See Svoronos, Ta Noulopara rod Kpdrous 
trav Iroveuatwr, Vol. II, Nos. 989 and 990. 

2. Ibid., NO. 4124 

3. Ibid., No. 1186. 

4. Ibid., No. got. 

5. British Museum Catalogue Cyrene, p. 83, 
Nos. 48-50, Pl. xxxi, 11-12, and Svoronos, loc. 
cit., Nos. 1145-1352: 

6. Loc cit., Vol. II, p. 177, note under head- 
ing : y). 

7. Loc. cit., Vol. I, pp. omn’-o7r6’. With this 
attribution Dr. Regling, Zeitschr. f. Num., 
Vol. xxv, 1906, p. 369, fully agrees. 

8. Strack, Die Dynastie der Ptolemaer, Nos. 
55-58, 69. Bouché-Leclerq, I, 329, 1. 

9. Strack, ibidem, No. 66; Mahaffy, The 
Empire of the Ptolemies, pp. 73-4 and 274. 

10. Loc. cit., p. op’. 

11. Ibid., Vol. II, Nos. 973 6 and 989 f. 

12. Ibid., Vol. I, p. ope’. Even here he is 
forced to admit (with which one can only 
agree) that these coins and the accompanying 
bronze pieces are also very frequently found 
in Egypt. The present writer has secured 
scores of examples of the bronze coins in Egypt 
and has seen literally hundreds of others from 
Egyptian “finds”. 


NUMISMATIC NG 


DELTA AND KENEH 33 


13. Zur alten Numismatik Aegyptens, pp. 
217 and 226. 

tq. £btd., p. 215. 

14-a. Ibid., p. 220. 

15. Compare them, for instance, with the 
well known gold octodrachms bearing the 
radiate bust of Euergetes (Svor., No. 1117) 
as against the one gold octodrachm of Berenice 
which was certainly struck in Ephesus (Svor., 
Nos. 899 and goo; Brit. Museum Catalogue, 
Plate xiii, 2). The former are as obviously 
Egyptian as the latter is Asiatic. 

if. Loc cit;, p. - 369: 

17. Loc. cit., Vol. I, pp. o76', ry'-rs’. 

18. Ibid. In his catalogue Svoronos places 
all of these coins under Cyprus. In his intro- 
duction, p. TTB, however, he appears to accept 
Poole’s suggestion, though only for a few of 
the coins in question. 

19. Loc. cit., introd., pp. Ixxviii-lxxix. 

20. oc. tit. Vol. I, p. vd’ ff. 

21. Num. Chron., N. S., Vol. IV, p. 189. 

ae. Loc. cit, Vol. 1, pp. rya'-ryp’. 

oo, zeuscnr. 7. Num. Vol. XXV, 1906, 
p. 381. 

24. Frag. Hist. Gr. III, pp. 720-1. 

25. Poole, in the British Museum Catalogue, 
assigned the gold to Ptolemy VIII or later 
(introd., p. xli), the silver solely to Ptolemy 
VIII (ibid., p. Ixxiv). Svoronos gives (loc. 
cit., Vol. I, pp. 7&5’ and vs’) some of the gold 
to Ptolemy VI and some to Ptolemy VIII, 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


TWO EGYPITAN, HOA. 


while the silver he assigns (ibid., pp. r¥¢'-74n’) 
Ptolemies VI and VIII. Regling clearly sees 
that their style points rather to Ptolemy VI 
(Zeitschr. f. Num., Vol. XXV, p. 382). It 
was undoubtedly due to insufficient data that 
Poole was led to question (ibid., p. lxxiii) the 
Egyptian origin of these tetradrachms. In 
additon to the present hoard the writer, in the 
course of three previous visits to Egypt, saw 
many of these particular coins which had come 
from hoards undoubtedly unearthed in that 
country. They seem to be particularly com- 
mon on the Egyptian coin market. 

26, Cf. Mahatty’s Empire of the Ptolemies, 
pp. 374-85, based on Polybius’ account and also 
on Athenaeus, IV, c. 83. 


NUMISMATIC AG ee 


» = * 


DELTA HOARD, 1923. Plate I 


# 


* 
y 
‘ 


KENEH HOARD. 


Plate 


II 


KENEH HOARD. Plate II 


; 


ae | a - 
UP deka? 


Numismatic Notes anp MonocRAPHS 


1. Sydney P. Noe. Coin Hoards. 1921. 47 PP. 
6 pls. soc. 

4. Howland Wood. The Mexican Revolutionary 
Coinage 1913-1916. 1921. 44 pp. 26 pls. $2.00. 

6. Agnes Baldwin. Five Roman Gold Medallions, 
£941, 5103 pp.) 8: pis... $1.50; 

7, Sydney P. Noe. Medallic Work of A. A. Wein- 
man. 1921. 31 pp. 17 pls. $1.00. 

8. Gilbert S. Perez. The Mint of the Philispine 
Islands. 1921. 8 pp. 4 pls. soc. | ; 

9. David Eugene Smith, LL.D. Computing Jetons. 
1921. 7O pp. 25 pls. $1.50. 

10. Edward T. Newell. The First Seleucid Coinage 
of Tyre. 1921. 4o pp. 8 pls. $1.00. 

11. Harrold E. Gillingham. French Orders and 
Decorations. 1922. 110 pp. 35 pls. $2.00. 


Howland Wood. Gold Dollars of 1858. 1922. 


zdan Coinage of 
5 pls. $2.00. 


of Characene. 


(A Contribution 
1922. 234 pp. 


a 
ae 
21, 
cae 
ie (23 
eee 
yee 
: slate 
ae 
20. 
ares 


Bae ; “32. 


ch 


3 NunisaArres noises AND MonocRaPHs ;* 


(Continued) ' 


Edward 7. Newell, . Alexander Hoards—Il. 


_ Demanhur Hoard. 1923. 162 pp. 8 pls. $2.50. 


Harrold E. Gillingham. Italian Orders of Chiv- 
alry and Medals RF Honour. ek 146 pp. 34. 


pls. $2.00.. 


Edward T. Newend Moxie “Hoards—III. y 


_Andritsaena. 1924. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.00. 


pp. 3 pls. $1.00. 


Wh: R. ‘B. Seager. A Cretan Coin Hoard. 1924. 83 


“Dp. a2 pls. $2. 00, 
1925. 66 pp. 5 pls. $2.00. 


Hoards. 1925. 275 pp. $2.50. 


Edward T. Newell: -Mithradates of Parthia ul 


Hyspaosines of is aia 1925. 18 pp. 2 pls. 
B00, 


1926. 73 pp. 10 pls. $2.00. 


iC ‘]. Seltman, A Hoasd from Side. 1924. 20 | 


* 


Samuel R. Milbank, The Coinage of Aegina, i 


Sydney P. Noe. A Bibhagreshy of. Greek Coit 


“‘Syduey'P: Noe. |The Mende Wanna Hoard. 


Agnes Baldwin. Four Medallions from the Arras ¥ 


Hoard, 1926. 36 PP. 4 pls. $1.50. 


Norway. 1926. 41 pp. 50c. 


Edward T. Newell. Some Unpublished Coins of 
Eastern Dynasts. 1926. 21 pp. 2 pls. 5o0c. 


Chivalry and Decorations of Rogen eet 
165 pp. 40 pls. $3.00. 


—H. Alexander Parsons. The Earliest Coins of | 


Harrold E. Gillingham. Spanish Orders of © 


Sydney P. Noe. The Coinage of Metapontun, 


1927. 134 pp. 33 Seyi ‘$3. 00. 


fp 


oa 


